Eric:
While I reject the premise that the government is going to have the money
anyway, and can't be reduced--because I won't be able to sleep nights if I
accept it--I must agree with you on art education. We don't need to teach
kids about art, we need to teach them to make art. Once children, or adults
for that matter, begin making art they naturally seek out other work.
I have found in my writing classes that you get people to read by teaching
them to write, and modern thinking in education is exactly the opposite. It
favors reading as a way to learn to write, and looking at art as a way to
make it. You can't read Moby Dick and then sit down to write your own
classic. Lord know that too many people have confused looking at Adams work
with being able to create it themselves. All of the photographic refrences
that we all have in our libraries help us to use the skills we already have.
I'm in favor of spending money to teach kids. You can teach an entire
elementary school of kids with one Art teacher making $40,000. There's lots
more bang for the buck at the front end.
So here's my point, to get this back to Leica: 10 beat-up M4-P users in the
bag are better than a Danish Royal Wedding M6 on the shelf.
Tom
>But that being said, there is a lot of wisdom in what you are saying. Art
>does need to be mostly supported by the wealthy people in the world who
>could do worse with their charitable contributions. Yet, to promote art in
>schools (encouraging kids to draw, dance, speak, buy Leicas) is a good
>thing if you ask me. Maybe we need to separate the two, supporting art
>education - where there is no judgement of what art is, just helping kids
>learn to express themselves - and artists?
>==========
>
>Eric Welch
>St. Joseph, MO
>http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch